a labor issue

Illegal immigrants by state.

talking to my dad today before the protest, we were trying to figure out why CNN made today's immigration marches, rallies and protests a main event, but The New York Times buried it on page four. All I could come up with was that no one -- not the administration, not our Congress, not the media, and not even the protesters -- could decide what kind of issue undocumented immigration actually is.

It contains within it racism, class issues, labor issues, the history of colonialism, imperialism, and the greater "class" issue of third vs. first world. There are also huge pockets of gender issues, ageism, religious and cultural intolerance, and more recently, issues of control of globalization by multinational corporations. So how do we address undocumented immigration? Whose oppression is it? Who has the most right, and the most responsibility, to protest?

Well, my answer is that today it is a labor issue, since today is May 1, international workers day. (And how fucked up is it that pretty much only the USA has a different workers/labor holiday?)

Using that lens, however, you can look at all of the other issues. For example, compare these two Worldmapper maps. The first is of net global immigration; the countries are resized to reflect how much human intake they get.

Then look at this one, of net emmigration; countries are resized to reflect their human loss to outward migration:

Dramatic, isn't it? Naturally, we're all thinking that people are going where the jobs are. But is this absolutely true? I couldn't find any statistics to reflect this, but aren't people going, not so much where the jobs are, but where the money is? It may seem a fine distinction, but with industrial jobs being moved to Asia and Mexico, and away from the United States -- and the gap being filled by low-wage service jobs -- isn't it the overall wealth and opportunity that's the draw and not the rate of economic growth?

Here's where the income has been growing, dropping, and holding steady for the past twenty years:

Link.

Looking at this map, it seems, for a moment, arbitrary, that so much wealth, so many resources, can be monopolized by so few, and that because of accidents of history. One thing I do have to say about the Bush administration: they ignore almost every other consideration of social objects and historical processes, but they do observe the meanings of such maps. If nothing else is achieved, the income and wealth and resources contained within the borders of the United States will remain there, and grow.

But then, following out this logic, and ignoring the increasingly pointless distinctions of national borders, shouldn't everyone then be going where the resources are? Our immigration policy has been nothing but arbitrary, reactionary, and reactive. It's never been planned. But, unintentionally, our immigration process has created historically an obstacle course that allows in only the most persistent, hard-working, sneaky, or innovative. Shouldn't those who -- against all odds, INS agents, and social disadvantages -- manage to stay here and thrive be certified exactly the kind of Americans who can help us keep our resources and wealth here? Shouldn't we be keeping out those who "wait patiently" for their green cards? Isn't greed healthy? Isn't "thinking outside the box" borders what we're looking for?

Why do we have so much trouble getting our shit together?